Press secretary gibs: Profession left should be drug tested.

[sgreger1]

"I hear these people saying he's like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested," Gibbs said. "I mean, it's crazy."

The press secretary dismissed the "professional left" in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, "They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we've eliminated the Pentagon. That's not reality."

He then tried to apologize about the gaffe after the blogosphere was quick to criticise him for his comments.

His remarks reflect the White House's sensitivity at criticism from the left of the Democratic party, who are unhappy that Obama has too often appeared to compromise on domestic policy while continuing Bush administration policies, as well as a continued failure to close Guantanamo prison.

[Bigblue1]

"There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it through brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods." -Aldous Huxley

How old is that qoute? It is more than prescient.

Oh and what book is it from?

[truthwolf1]

1984
Brave New World

[Bigblue1]

1984
Brave New World

So I take it that it is from a brave new world. Which was written in 1931 and published in 1932. I know Alex always says that Huxley and Orwell Were privy to the NWO plans and that Brave New World and 1984 Were based in much fact. I must do more research on my own. It's all just too prescient to be purely coincidental.

[sgreger1]

No, this quote was from Aldous Huxley's lecture to The California Medical School in San Francisco in 1961.



Full quote: "There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."

[Bigblue1]

Just Scary. Do you have a link to the entire text of the speech?

[sgreger1]

Just Scary. Do you have a link to the entire text of the speech?

The Ultimate Revolution, by Aldous Huxley in 1961 to the CA Medical School in San Fran:

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/061106_huxley.html

Here are the first 4 paragraphs. Read the whole thing, it's pure gold.

Well now in regard to this problem of the ultimate revolution, this has been very well summed up by the moderator. In the past we can say that all revolutions have essentially aimed at changing the environment in order to change the individual. I mean there's been the political revolution, the economic revolution, in the time of the reformation, the religious revolution. All these aimed, not directly at the human being, but at his surroundings. So that by modifying the surroundings you did achieve, did one remove the effect of the human being.

Today we are faced, I think, with the approach of what may be called the ultimate revolution, the final revolution, where man can act directly on the mind-body of his fellows. Well needless to say some kind of direct action on human mind-bodies has been going on since the beginning of time. But this has generally been of a violent nature. The Techniques of terrorism have been known from time immemorial and people have employed them with more or less ingenuity sometimes with the utmost cruelty, sometimes with a good deal of skill acquired by a process of trial and error finding out what the best ways of using torture, imprisonment, constraints of various kinds.

But, as, I think it was (sounds like Mettenicht) said many years ago, you can do everything with {garbled} except sit on them. If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must have some measure of consent, it's exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely. It can function for a fairly long time, but I think sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion an element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them.

It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. This is the, it seems to me, the ultimate in malevolent revolutions shall we say, and this is a problem which has interested me many years and about which I wrote thirty years ago, a fable, Brave New World, which is an account of society making use of all the devices available and some of the devices which I imagined to be possible making use of them in order to, first of all, to standardize the population, to iron out inconvenient human differences, to create, to say, mass produced models of human beings arranged in some sort of scientific caste system. Since then, I have continued to be extremely interested in this problem and I have noticed with increasing dismay a number of the predictions which were purely fantastic when I made them thirty years ago have come true or seem in process of coming true.






I've been saying this all along. Why have slaves by force? It's too hard, eventually they overthrow the king, eventually they run somewhere else or find a way out of slavery because traditional slavery imposes too much hardship on them. But if we could institute a form of financial slavery, coupled with drugs that make you docile, those who wish to enslave other could easly make a surf out of every man and woman without every using a single set of shackles. By allowing us a decent slave lifestyle, we will happily sign over our rights and put the shackles of financial slavery on our own wrists without ever complaining, (let alone actually revolting against it).

[truthwolf1]

It's a crazy world. I wonder how much on the "in" some of these old guys were. They definately accurately predicted our reality of today.

This is also where A Jones has a good talent for putting this old info all together. The latest is putting more additives in the water to control the population. Lithium for one, to stop suicides. Once they do that who knows what else is going to be added to stop humanity from rising up.

[sgreger1]

It's a crazy world. I wonder how much on the "in" some of these old guys were. They definately accurately predicted our reality of today.

This is also where A Jones has a good talent for putting this old info all together. The latest is putting more additives in the water to control the population. Lithium for one, to stop suicides. Once they do that who knows what else is going to be added to stop humanity from rising up.

I dont generally buy into the theory that they knew anything secret or were "in the know". All one must do is look around you. I bet some of the stuff we talk about here will happen someday, doesnt mean we had any insider information, more likely it's just about learning which way the wind blows.

In the 60's birth control was getting big and pharmaceuticals were really starting to hit the marketplace in a way they hadn't before. Is it such a stretch to predict that someday half of kids under 18 would be on ridalin? (not a real statistic, dont have time to look it up). Yet im sure it will happen.

Same thing with a world government. Does anyone here truly believe there will not at some point be a world government? I mean it has to happen at some point. Look at the UN, that's the first step, it starts as a collaberative effort, but soon sovereignty will become a dirty word and some form of central government will be established. In the old days we had many states, all with different rules and sovereign in their own way, but eventually the leaders sought to establish a federal government to standardize some of the rules and regulations. Same will happen with nations. Nations are the new state. For long term global commerce to work we have to standardize workplace regulations, currency exchange rates (likely just adopt one currency), make rules regarding trade, global human rights laws etc etc.


It will happen, whether or not it will be bad or not is still yet to be known. I can see it doing a lot of good in theory, but at the same time large central governments rarely tend to bring good, so who knows.


On February 17, 1950, James Paul Warburg confidently declared to the United States Senate: “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”[1]

James Paul Warburg (1896-1969) was the son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb & Company which financed the Russian Revolution through James’ brother Max, banker to the government of Germany.



We can't have a world economy without standardized rules, this is why we see jobs going overseas, it's an unlevel playing field. Eventually they will establish a world government to regulate inter-national commerce in the same way the feds regulate inter-state commerce. Again, it sounds good in theory at least, but ive lost all trust in government so I think a greedy few will take over and corrupt the central government and then hand out favors to their friends. This is the inherent nature of governments.

[Bigblue1]

[RobsanX]

No, this quote was from Aldous Huxley's lecture to The California Medical School in San Francisco in 1961.



Full quote: "There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."

What's the point? Religion seems to be doing a pretty good job already...

[sgreger1]

What's the point? Religion seems to be doing a pretty good job already...

No, religion sedates the people but only under certain conditions. For example, when the government starts moving towards a more secular way of society, and christians are being laughed at, they start rising up. Look at the tea party right now, a lot of that is a bunch of christians who feel the administration is trying to bring secularism to our country (lol, as though it's not already here). Religion is a good opium for the masses, but actual opium works good too

Plus, nowadays less and less people are turning to religion, I mean fi you read the internet alone you can see the trend moving away from organized religion, so the religious opiate won't work forever. But hey, if you feel a little down today Timmy, just take 2 of these for the next 30 years and you'll hav a smile on your face everyday no matter what!

*side effects include stroke, sudden death, spontaneous combustion, erectile dysfunction and heart attacks.

[RobsanX]

I wouldn't mind Christians so much if they were a little more Christ like...

[sgreger1]

I wouldn't mind Christians so much if they were a little more Christ like...

No religions truly follow the word for word of their bible. Religious texts that are thousands of years old get corrupted over time by the politics of the countries in which hey reside. Look a tthe middle east, look at the Catholic empire, they take and distort a very simple message of peace into some sort of call to arms. They cleverly omit things like "stone women if they do anything wrong", and then go on to chery pick out the parts they like (and are quick to quote scripture into situations that are of a different context than the scripture intended).


I think ona personal level there is nothing wrong with religion, as most religions tend to preach ideas such as peace, be good to your neighbor, don't steal or kill people etc etc. But when large, country sized groups of followers get together it always leads to conflict for some reason. Whether it be a "my religion is better than your religion" type of ocnflict or a more direct "My religion says to kill anyone not of my religion" type of conflict, both lead to problems.



And what is "christ like"? The pages of the new testament have been altered more than once, and most of it is second hand observations of what Christ said or was like during his lifetime. Like the catholics, aka the cult of paul, they only cherry pick certain things that they like. In the other books of the bible that were at a later date ommitted from the king james version, Jesus is described in his childhood to be quit a little brat. He uses his magic to inflict harm on others and is pompous and arrogant, killing and blinding people for offenses as small as bumping into him as they passed by or because they said something he didn't like. Only in the later years did he suddenly turn into this messenger of peace, which is why the entire account of his youth was cut out of the bible due to the conflicting message. But then again, he is the son of God, right? And god is a wrathfull (and somehow at the asme time peacefull) God, right? He wipes out entire an entire planets population and allows evil, why should his son act in any other way?




I think the whole concept of organized religion is a bastardization of a very simple concept, that concept being that we are all brothers here on earth and that we are better off when working together than devided, that we should be good people and be kind to each other and be of good character and high moral fiber. Organized religion devides people and segregates them based on which "God" they believe in, even in situations like the Jew/Christian/Muslim thing where they all essentially believe in the same God.

[truthwolf1]

I think the whole concept of organized religion is a bastardization of a very simple concept, that concept being that we are all brothers here on earth and that we are better off when working together than devided, that we should be good people and be kind to each other and be of good character and high moral fiber. Organized religion devides people and segregates them based on which "God" they believe in, even in situations like the Jew/Christian/Muslim thing where they all essentially believe in the same God.

This is exactly where the New World ORder wants us to be. A global unified religion. Then the antichrist will arrive to rape us all.